SGU had potential or did it? [Moved posts from another thread]

[Overmind One]

Oh, I don't know dude, SGU did have potential, I'll never take that away from it.What I will say is that it wasted it, badly

I agree...the original premise had LOTS of potential, but they ruined the blastoff with the heavy soapy stuff and broom closet scene before the 5th episode. The fleshing out of these characters was done out of Stargate context without regard to canon, and that ruined the rest of the show. I think that season 2 was a lot more watchable, but it was ruined by the events of season 1. This would not have been an issue if the show wasnt serialized (episodic). There were too many mistakes and the writing was too sloppy and unfocused. It reminded me of that show where strangers get up on stage and do comedy skits from the cuff (cant think of the name of the show). Seemed made up along the way.

 

[Gatefan1976]

See, here is an area where we sorta agree/disagree.The "closet scene" was fine to me, it was *supposed* to show how lax security et al was under Col Young, yet they did not truly build on that idea. Then of course there is the fact that "fraternising" on that level is supposed to be a huge no no. It's a good idea, but what they did with it is just,

 

[shavedape]

See, here is an area where we sorta agree/disagree.The "closet scene" was fine to me, it was *supposed* to show how lax security et al was under Col Young, yet they did not truly build on that idea. Then of course there is the fact that "fraternising" on that level is supposed to be a huge no no. It's a good idea, but what they did with it is just,

The fraternizing was not Stargate. There were ways that they could have shown Col. Young's incompetence/apathy/etc. that weren't so graphic and distasteful. A Stargate character can grow and should grow over the course of a series, but what they tried with Col. Young was so over the top and ridiculous that it was a major flaw from the get go -- hence my assertion that SGU was not a good concept to begin with. Obviously the depiction of Col. Young was just one of many flaws in the conceptualization of the show.

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting as I don't mean it to but the way I see it is that anyone who asserts that "SGU was a good idea that just wasn't carried out correctly" has to prove their assertion. The entire premise of marooned people on a ship is so tired and hackneyed as to defy the definition of being "good". It was a stolen concept and the characters were stolen, cardboard cliches and stereotypes -- the angry lesbian, the leader wrestling with fear and indecision and alcoholism, the angry black man who resents authority, the maniacal scientist, the fat lonely geek, etc. How is using someone else's tired archetypes considered good especially when nothing new is done to flesh out these characters? This isn't the basis for a "good" concept, it's lazy writing.

The fact that they added in a "mission" for Destiny in the second season also proves that the initial concept wasn't good. How can SGU be considered a "good idea" from inception when its core story line didn't even exist for the entire first season???

And let's not forget the style of the show from inception -- they went for cliche, contrived, derivative, hackneyed, tired tired tired melodrama. This style was an integral part of the inception of the show, it wasn't just window dressing. The characters motives, methods and actions were informed by melodrama. How can this be considered good in any way, shape or form?

Were there some good ideas that could have been mined from the stolen, derivative, hackneyed concept of SGU? Sure, but that would require doing something different with those ideas and giving them an original spin. I didn't see much originality in the depiction of those stolen concepts.

There's more, always more, but the bottom line is that if anyone is going to claim that SGU was based on a good, original concept it is up to them to prove it. I haven't seen that yet.

Nope, sorry folks, but the truth is that SGU wasn't based on good concepts which is exactly why it failed. If anyone asserts that SGU was good conceptually it's up to them to prove it.

Thank you

 

[Rac80]

The fraternizing was not Stargate. There were ways that they could have shown Col. Young's incompetence/apathy/etc. that weren't so graphic and distasteful. A Stargate character can grow and should grow over the course of a series, but what they tried with Col. Young was so over the top and ridiculous that it was a major flaw from the get go -- hence my assertion that SGU was not a good concept to begin with. Obviously the depiction of Col. Young was just one of many flaws in the conceptualization of the show.

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting as I don't mean it to but the way I see it is that anyone who asserts that "SGU was a good idea that just wasn't carried out correctly" has to prove their assertion. The entire premise of marooned people on a ship is so tired and hackneyed as to defy the definition of being "good". It was a stolen concept and the characters were stolen, cardboard cliches and stereotypes -- the angry lesbian, the leader wrestling with fear and indecision and alcoholism, the angry black man who resents authority, the maniacal scientist, the fat lonely geek, etc. How is using someone else's tired archetypes considered good especially when nothing new is done to flesh out these characters? This isn't the basis for a "good" concept, it's lazy writing.

The fact that they added in a "mission" for Destiny in the second season also proves that the initial concept wasn't good. How can SGU be considered a "good idea" from inception when its core story line didn't even exist for the entire first season???

And let's not forget the style of the show from inception -- they went for cliche, contrived, derivative, hackneyed, tired tired tired melodrama. This style was an integral part of the inception of the show, it wasn't just window dressing. The characters motives, methods and actions were informed by melodrama. How can this be considered good in any way, shape or form?

Were there some good ideas that could have been mined from the stolen, derivative, hackneyed concept of SGU? Sure, but that would require doing something different with those ideas and giving them an original spin. I didn't see much originality in the depiction of those stolen concepts.

There's more, always more, but the bottom line is that if anyone is going to claim that SGU was based on a good, original concept it is up to them to prove it. I haven't seen that yet.

Nope, sorry folks, but the truth is that SGU wasn't based on good concepts which is exactly why it failed. If anyone asserts that SGU was good conceptually it's up to them to prove it.

Thank you

the only good thing about the show is that I got to meet you people while complaining about it!

 

[Joelist]

I agree...the original premise had LOTS of potential, but they ruined the blastoff with the heavy soapy stuff and broom closet scene before the 5th episode. The fleshing out of these characters was done out of Stargate context without regard to canon, and that ruined the rest of the show. I think that season 2 was a lot more watchable, but it was ruined by the events of season 1. This would not have been an issue if the show wasnt serialized (episodic). There were too many mistakes and the writing was too sloppy and unfocused. It reminded me of that show where strangers get up on stage and do comedy skits from the cuff (cant think of the name of the show). Seemed made up along the way.

The Gong Show is the one you are thinking of...

 

[Stonelesscutter]

OMG Tropi what have you done!
The thread has been derailed and we're back on discussing SGU all over again.

 

[Tropicana]

And rightly so.

 

[Stonelesscutter]

And rightly so.

Why not create an entirely new thread where we can start discussing the viewpoints on SGU again.
It might be interesting to see if certain pov's have changed over time.

 

[Tropicana]

I suppose, let me wave my magic gay-fairy wand and make your wish come true.

EDIT: Your wish is my command.

 

[shavedape]

Why not create an entirely new thread where we can start discussing the viewpoints on SGU again.
It might be interesting to see if certain pov's have changed over time.

My pov hasn't changed. Why would it? SGU hasn't changed. It's still crap.

 

[Gatefan1976]

The fraternizing was not Stargate. There were ways that they could have shown Col. Young's incompetence/apathy/etc. that weren't so graphic and distasteful. A Stargate character can grow and should grow over the course of a series, but what they tried with Col. Young was so over the top and ridiculous that it was a major flaw from the get go -- hence my assertion that SGU was not a good concept to begin with. Obviously the depiction of Col. Young was just one of many flaws in the conceptualization of the show.

Strangely eough dude, I'm not buying that you truly found the idea of two people shagging in a broom closet "graphic and distasteful"
I will buy that it just wasn't "stargate" to do it/show it however. If the point of the scene was to show the fact security is lax, then yes, it was a silly way to go about it for a stargate show.

I'm sorry if this sounds insulting as I don't mean it to but the way I see it is that anyone who asserts that "SGU was a good idea that just wasn't carried out correctly" has to prove their assertion. The entire premise of marooned people on a ship is so tired and hackneyed as to defy the definition of being "good"

Not insulting at all brother ape , I understand you are discussing the issue, not the poster.
However, "SGU was a good idea that just wasn't carried out correctly" is not what I said, nor what I meant. I said "SGU did have potential" and what I mean by that is there were, for me at least, a few interesting idea's in there. Is the idea of people being marooned on a ship hakneyed and trite and derivative, sure, but thats not one of the idea's I liked.

It was a stolen concept and the characters were stolen, cardboard cliches and stereotypes -- the angry lesbian, the leader wrestling with fear and indecision and alcoholism, the angry black man who resents authority, the maniacal scientist, the fat lonely geek, etc. How is using someone else's tired archetypes considered good especially when nothing new is done to flesh out these characters? This isn't the basis for a "good" concept, it's lazy writing.

Cliched, crap, derivative, they all work because it is lazy writing, no arguments. I have never said, nor will I ever say that either the actual writing or the characters themselves were anything but bad.

The fact that they added in a "mission" for Destiny in the second season also proves that the initial concept wasn't good. How can SGU be considered a "good idea" from inception when its core story line didn't even exist for the entire first season???

And let's not forget the style of the show from inception -- they went for cliche, contrived, derivative, hackneyed, tired tired tired melodrama. This style was an integral part of the inception of the show, it wasn't just window dressing. The characters motives, methods and actions were informed by melodrama. How can this be considered good in any way, shape or form?

Were there some good ideas that could have been mined from the stolen, derivative, hackneyed concept of SGU? Sure, but that would require doing something different with those ideas and giving them an original spin. I didn't see much originality in the depiction of those stolen concepts.

I'll just stop you here dude, because this bit is exactly all I am trying to convey. there were some interesting ideas. Nothing to do with delivery or timing of said ideas. I don't like SGU either, for every reason you have said and possibly more, that does not however prevent me from saying "this CBR idea is cool, this has potential", even if I'm totally dissapointed with what actually happens onscreen.

There's more, always more, but the bottom line is that if anyone is going to claim that SGU was based on a good, original concept it is up to them to prove it. I haven't seen that yet.

Nope, sorry folks, but the truth is that SGU wasn't based on good concepts which is exactly why it failed. If anyone asserts that SGU was good conceptually it's up to them to prove it.

Thank you

Good thing I'm not asserting any of those things eh?

 

[shavedape]

Strangely eough dude, I'm not buying that you truly found the idea of two people shagging in a broom closet "graphic and distasteful"
I will buy that it just wasn't "stargate" to do it/show it however. If the point of the scene was to show the fact security is lax, then yes, it was a silly way to go about it for a stargate show.

I generally don't find sex scenes graphic and distasteful, but in regards to established Stargate style I do. It never happened in the original movie or in SG1 or SGA. That's why I found it graphic and distasteful. Sorry if I wasn't more clear about that.

Not insulting at all brother ape , I understand you are discussing the issue, not the poster.
However, "SGU was a good idea that just wasn't carried out correctly" is not what I said, nor what I meant. I said "SGU did have potential" and what I mean by that is there were, for me at least, a few interesting idea's in there. Is the idea of people being marooned on a ship hakneyed and trite and derivative, sure, but thats not one of the idea's I liked.



Cliched, crap, derivative, they all work because it is lazy writing, no arguments. I have never said, nor will I ever say that either the actual writing or the characters themselves were anything but bad.



I'll just stop you here dude, because this bit is exactly all I am trying to convey. there were some interesting ideas. Nothing to do with delivery or timing of said ideas. I don't like SGU either, for every reason you have said and possibly more, that does not however prevent me from saying "this CBR idea is cool, this has potential", even if I'm totally dissapointed with what actually happens onscreen.



Good thing I'm not asserting any of those things eh?

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it look like you, personally, were asserting that SGU was a good concept or even based on good concepts. I was just speaking to anyone who would assert such a thing. It's one thing for a person to say they liked it but it's quite another to say that it's good. That would imply that one has objective proof of SGU's goodness.

And yes, there are interesting ideas that can be mined from just about any show. The CBR thing is interesting but in the context of SGU it was not good. Even someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of physics knows that CBR doesn't have a source but rather is ubiquitous so the "mission" of Destiny to find the source of CBR was stupid, i.e. it was a bad concept.

 

[Gatefan1976]

I generally don't find sex scenes graphic and distasteful, but in regards to established Stargate style I do. It never happened in the original movie or in SG1 or SGA. That's why I found it graphic and distasteful. Sorry if I wasn't more clear about that.

Not at all dude, I knew what you meant

Sorry, I didn't mean to make it look like you, personally, were asserting that SGU was a good concept or even based on good concepts. I was just speaking to anyone who would assert such a thing. It's one thing for a person to say they liked it but it's quite another to say that it's good. That would imply that one has objective proof of SGU's goodness.

And yes, there are interesting ideas that can be mined from just about any show. The CBR thing is interesting but in the context of SGU it was not good. Even someone with the most rudimentary knowledge of physics knows that CBR doesn't have a source but rather is ubiquitous so the "mission" of Destiny to find the source of CBR was stupid, i.e. it was a bad concept.

Again, I don't think we are arguing here at all brother Ape, more like clarifying our positions. Nor did I ever think you were "singling me out", this indeed, just goes to show how different two people watching the same material can get different things from it. I was always hoping, for all 40 eps, that SGU could, somehow, "be all it could be", unfortunately, It just never happened for me.

 

[shavedape]

Not at all dude, I knew what you meant




Again, I don't think we are arguing here at all brother Ape, more like clarifying our positions. Nor did I ever think you were "singling me out", this indeed, just goes to show how different two people watching the same material can get different things from it. I was always hoping, for all 40 eps, that SGU could, somehow, "be all it could be", unfortunately, It just never happened for me.

SGU was all it could possibly be, that's why it failed, which is basically my point.

 

[Gatefan1976]

SGU was all it could possibly be, that's why it failed, which is basically my point.

It was "all it could be" with the people it had in charge, yes, I agree. My counterpoint is "With different people, some of these Ideas could have made a good show", I don't "miss" SGU, I miss "what could have been". You are discussing the reality, and your right, I am bemoaning the possibility.

 

[shavedape]

It was "all it could be" with the people it had in charge, yes, I agree. My counterpoint is "With different people, some of these Ideas could have made a good show", I don't "miss" SGU, I miss "what could have been". You are discussing the reality, and your right, I am bemoaning the possibility.

Well with different people in charge it would have been completely different so that's sort of a moot point.

 

[Gatefan1976]

Well with different people in charge it would have been completely different so that's sort of a moot point.

OK dude.
Not gonna bother with this point as I think we see things far to differently.

 

[shavedape]

OK dude.
Not gonna bother with this point as I think we see things far to differently.

Do you still love me?

 

[Gatefan1976]

Do you still love me?

Of course, why wouldn't I?

 

[Stonelesscutter]

Do you still love me?

Of course, why wouldn't I?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wadTCIKrPrw